Eighty-percent of judicial nominees over the past four years received bipartisan support in committee
Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Nominations Hearing
Wednesday, June 4, 2025
Good morning,
I’d like to welcome everyone to our first judicial nominations hearing of the 119th Congress.
Today, we’ll consider five impressive judicial nominees.
On our first panel, we’ll hear from Whitney Hermandorfer, nominee to be a Circuit Judge for a Tennessee seat on the Sixth Circuit.
On our second Panel, we’ll hear from four district court nominees: Joshua Divine to the Eastern and Western District of Missouri, and Zachary Bluestone, Maria Lanahan and Cristian Stevens to the Eastern District of Missouri.
I’m grateful to my colleagues, Senators Hawley and Schmitt for agreeing to co-chair this hearing when I leave in a few minutes.
The exercise of our constitutional Advice and Consent role for judicial nominations is one of the most important functions of our committee.
Article III judges serve for life, and the judges we confirm will impact the lives of Americans for decades to come.
I’m pleased that the President has sent five strong choices to the Senate for our first hearing.
Although the controversial moments in our committee often draw the most attention, it’s important to remember that we have a long tradition of cooperation across the aisle, even in the face of heated political differences.
Over the last four years, the Biden Administration put forward many controversial judicial nominees.
Most would not have been the choice of any Republican on committee, but elections, as we all know, have consequences.
Despite our disagreements with their judicial philosophies, a substantial majority of judicial nominees during the last Administration received bipartisan support.
As my colleague, then-Chairman Durbin said at the time, “We are proud of the fact that these nominees have bipartisan support. More than 80% of them received bipartisan support.”
I’m proud of that as well, and I hope we can have the same bipartisan support for the highly qualified nominees before us today.
I worry that partisanship will hamper these efforts.
Recently, the Ranking Member has raised the prospect of a blanket hold of U.S. Attorney nominees.
I hope that we can work together to avoid this.
Confirming each U.S. Attorney by roll call will consume more than 230 hours of Senate floor time and will keep us from working on other important matters for the American people.
There is longstanding precedent that U.S. Attorneys are confirmed by a voice vote or unanimous consent – with few exceptions.
I understand that one of our former Republican colleagues held several United States Attorneys at the end of the last Administration.
But make no mistake: this isn’t “precedent” for blanket obstruction at the beginning of an administration, before even a single one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices is filled.
Holds should be used selectively. Blanket holds intended to wholly obstruct the confirmation process are misguided and threaten to undermine the Senate’s advice and consent role.
As the Ranking Member said last Congress, if the obstruction of U.S. Attorneys is carried out, “Public safety will suffer across the United States.”
I agree with this sentiment and think we should not place politics over keeping the American people safe.
The Ranking Member and I agree that, as he says, “there cannot be one set of rules for Republicans and another set for Democrats.”
Or as I like to say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
But we also shouldn’t take a single Senator’s actions as setting Senate-wide precedent. This will result in an inevitable and destructive race to the bottom.
As Chairman and Ranking Member, I hope together we can agree to maintain the traditions that make the Senate work.
We’ve both remained committed to the blue slip, despite pressure from our respective sides.
I hope we can also remain committed to moving qualified U.S. Attorneys efficiently, and using holds only on an individual basis and as a last resort.
Turning to our nominees, today we’ll hear from five highly qualified lawyers.
I’ll leave it to the introducers to describe their qualifications in depth, but I’ll briefly comment about the nominee to be a Circuit Judge.
Whitney Hermandorfer is uniquely impressive, even by the high standards of our Committee.
She’s clerked for three of the sitting Supreme Court Justices, she was valedictorian of her law school and she was co-captain of the women’s basketball team at Princeton.
After one hard fought loss, her college basketball coach said simply, “She isn’t afraid of anybody.”
Ms. Hermandorfer’s grit is not limited to the basketball court.
As the Director of the Strategic Litigation Unit in Tennessee, she’s led major cases on important issues of civil rights and the separation of powers.
She is widely praised by practitioners across the political spectrum for her brilliant legal mind, hard work, kindness and professionalism.
Our district court nominees are also highly qualified, and I’m sure Senators Hawley and Schmitt will have much to say about them and their qualifications.
We look forward to hearing from each of them today.
-30-